Antibiotics and resistant bacteria

the AB used in cattle feed in the USA is not used medically, so if resistance develops from overuse to that one, it won't impact medicine.

That's not exactly true. The program was probably referring to antibiotics used to promote growth, and some of those are different from antibiotics used to prevent disease, but some are still chemically related to antibiotics used by humans, so resistance is still a problem.

Yes, they were referring to growth promoter ABs. Michael Mosely did look worried that they were using them, even though the cattle farmer believed (or said he believed) resistance to them was no threat to ABs used to prevent disease.

Yes, they were referring to growth promoter ABs. Michael Mosely did look worried that they were using them, even though the cattle farmer believed (or said he believed) resistance to them was no threat to ABs used to prevent disease.

Reading this, I am again left with the impression that AB resistance is a very serious problem, but that the "age of the end of ABs" that was supposedly coming 20+ years ago has not happened and I doubt will. This sentence in the article caught my eye:

"Between 1991 and 2012 overall antibiotic failures increased from 13.9 per cent to 15.4 per cent."a

According to the Royal College of GPs chair, Prof Helen Stokes-Lampard:

Quote:

We are concerned about the concept of patients stopping taking their medication midway through a course once they ‘feel better’, because improvement in symptoms does not necessarily mean the infection has been completely eradicated.

And Prof Dame Sally Davies, England’s chief medical officer, said:

Quote:

The message to the public remains the same: people should always follow the advice of healthcare professionals. To update policies, we need further research to inform them.

Of course, you have to scroll right down to the bottom of the article to find those quotes :-S

Of course, you have to scroll right down to the bottom of the article to find those quotes :-S

Bloody hell, that whole article is pretty concerning/irresponsible. The opinion seems to be that it may make sense to stop antibiotics sooner if a) it's a long course and b) the infection is caused by a commensal. Not quite the same thing as always stop taking your antibiotics once you feel better. Plus, saying that there isn't enough evidence to be certain current advice is the best doesn't strike me as the same as there being enough evidence to change the recommendations...

I always thought that stopping your antibiotics too early was supposed to be the way that the most antibiotic-resisitant bacteria survived and thrived.

Yes and no. If a course of antibiotics is too short (because you stop them early), traditional thinking says the bacteria that caused the infection are more likely to come back and be resistant. However, antibiotics also affect other bacteria in your body, and the longer you're on antibiotics, the higher the chance these bacteria will become resistant. So it's essentially a balancing act.

This new research article is essentially saying that a lot of courses of antibiotics may well be too long, since we've historically been more concerned with making sure the infection's gone, rather than worrying about the potential problems with resistance associated with longer courses. That said, I do think they've slightly overreached saying that we should be telling people to stop when they feel better; the take-home should be to review the length of antibiotic courses and ensure the balance is as good as it should be. Plus, as they mention, for certain bacteria and infections (e.g. TB), the advice would always be to absolutely finish the course regardless.

Much as I'd hate to agree with The Donald when he says that the mainstream media distorts the facts, I'm beginning to think he's got a point in certain circumstances.

Compare with this article that claims a Banksy mural is Britain's favourite work of art*. The biggest problem with this story is that it's complete bollocks. Turns out the "nationwide poll" was simply a PR story dreamt up by Samsung in order to promote the launch of one of their new televisions.

*to be fair to the Grauniad, the story was also run by Sky News, The ToryGraph, The Times, and the Daily Wail (not linking to that, as I don't want to encourage traffic to their site).

That's certainly possible. Any decent healthcare should be evidence based and willing to change in the light of new data. However, such change should come from the health professionals themselves, not from headline writers in hack rags :-S

My gp surgery is taking a sensible approach to this. I currently have the tiniest hint of an infection (since the kidney stone incident of a few years ago, I like to keep on top of any renal abnormalities), so they don't want to give me antibiotics until it gets worse (on the offchance that it gets better by itself).